Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34081207›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2021

Quality of Diabetes Care in the USA.

Ben Alencherry, Dennis Bruemmer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ben AlencherryRobert and Suzanne Tomsich Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Dennis BruemmerRobert and Suzanne Tomsich Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. bruemmd@ccf.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the current quality of diabetes care in the USA, discuss barriers to guideline-recommended treatment adherence, and outline strategies for the improvement in care. RECENT

findingsCurrent treatment guidelines highlight the importance of glycemic control, use of novel medications with proven cardiovascular efficacy, and multifactorial cardiovascular risk factor intervention for the treatment of diabetes and associated complications. Albeit proven evidence for these guidelines, the vast majority of patients with diabetes remain insufficiently treated. Interventions to improve outcomes require focus on care delivery systems, physician behavior, and patient-centered approaches. De-fragmenting care systems to form collaborative, multi-specialty teams, use of standardized and comprehensive treatment algorithms, development of quality assessment tools, avoiding physician therapeutic inertia, and addressing patient barriers, including lack of perceived benefit, insufficient diabetes education and access to care, and medication costs, represent key objectives to improve diabetes care and outcomes. Clinical research in standardized trials has proven the feasibility to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes. Implementing models of care to disseminate these encouraging research findings to the wider population and to overcome barriers to achieving guideline-recommended treatment goals should be the objective to improve our current quality of diabetes care in the USA.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusPhysiciansGuideline AdherenceHumansUnited StatesCardiovascularDiabetesQuality of care

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.